Taking Sides #1

Name: Tyrell Moss

Course: Biology 1090, Human Biology
Book: Taking sides readings
Issue number: Issue 12, Is Genetic Enhancement an Unacceptable Use of Technology?
1. Author and major thesis of the Yes side
The author of the Yes side of this argument is, Michael J. Sandel. Sandel starts off his argument
talking about how new genetic technology has the aspirations for curing diseases but can easy be turned
to changing our genetic make by enhancement. Sandel goes over the possible enhancement of muscle,
memory, height, and being able to choose the sex of your baby. All of these enhancements may seem
like a good idea but what will the consequences? We are born and grow a certain way each person
different from one another why do we need to change that? If and when these enhancements become
available its going to be expensive meaning that it will only be available to a certain amount of people,
thus dividing our country between those with enhancements and those without. Finally, is it morally
right to change our genetic make-up or being able to choose the sex our unborn children and decide
how tall they will be?
2. Author and major thesis of the no side.
The author of the No side is, Howard Trachtman. One of the main points the Trachtman makes is
that from the earliest of times people have always been trying to enhance themselves. The word
enhancement is a vogue term but any new development in the medical field can be considered an
enhancement. If you look throughout history no matter what new development, we make nature is
always there to conquer it and present new challenges that needs to be overcome. Also if and when
any genetic advancements come available how many people will actually want to partake of it and
support it? Look at how many people are against hospitals, vaccines, and medications.
3. Briefly state in your own words two facts presented by each side.
First Yes fact Genetic enhancements would ruin sports. Everyone would try to take
advantage of these enhancements and take away whats special about athletic ability
Second Yes fact At first genetic enhancements would be an about curing diseases but
would easily move towards enhancing people.
First No fact People have been trying to change and improve themselves for ever and its
not going to stop.
Second No Fact No matter what we do to try to improve ourselves nature will always find
a way to give us new obstacles.
4. Briefly state in your own words two opinions presented by each side.
First Yes opinion New genetic enhancements will divide the population in those that have
enhancements and those that dont
Second Yes opinion The drive to the mastery of human nature will destroy the
appreciation of human accomplishments.
First No opinion No enhancements in the medical field has lived up to what we thought it
would be.
Second No opinion There is a lot of people that would not be interested and any
enhancements.
5. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the Yes side as you can.
The writer talks about there being a division between those who will have the enhancements and
those they wont. There are now facts backing up that it will be expensive and limited. Is it possible
that these enhancements will be come out and be available to most everyone? I say it is possible.
There was a poor job validating that these genetic enhancements are in demand and that people
actually want it. He talks about why its bad but doesnt address if there is people petitioning for

them.
6. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the No side as you can.
I think the biggest fallacy is that the writer doesnt give enough reasoning why all these possible
enhancements are needed. He briefly addresses that doctors want to help their patients but no details
beyond that.
7. All in all, which author impressed you as being the most empirical in presenting his or her
thesis? Why?
Michael J. Sandel impressed me as the most empirical of the two in presenting his thesis. To me
Sandel was more organized and detailed in his presentation. He seemed to be more passionate about
what he wanted to tell you too. I felt like Sandel had a point he wanted to make and he made it more
clearly.
8. Are there any reasons to believe the writers are biased? Is so, why do they have these biases?
I believe that everyone has biases towards one thing or another including these writers. There are
many factors that create these biases including how you grew up, your interests, what you study, your
role models, personal experience, and many other things can create a bias.
9. Which side (Yes or No) do you personally feel is the most correct now that you have reviewed
the material in these articles? Why?
I feel that Michael J. Sandel on the Yes side is the most correct. I think that medical
enhancements are coming and that they should be used to cure diseases and heal the sick and injured. I
believe that mankind is always wanting more and to improve themselves. These enhancements will
take away from our individualism and what makes us unique. I am religious and feel that God has
created us all the way we are for a reason and we shouldnt mess with that on such a big scale. There is
a difference from healing someone from being wounded to engineering someone to be 7 feet tall.
Being able to pick the sex of your baby is basically slapping God in the face and robs us of having a
baby we are supposed to have. Finally, people are greedy and these future enhancements will end up
being corrupted in one way or the other.